Reliability Study and Solder Joint Microstructure of Various SnAgCu Ceramic Ball Grid Array (CBGA) Geometries and Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The solder joint microstructure and reliability of 937 I/O Ceramic Ball Grid Array (CBGA) packages assembled on several Printed Circuit Board (PCB) test vehicle designs were studied in these evaluations. These packages were 32.5mm square, full array, and primarily 1.0 mm pitch. In the first study, the packages used Sn3.8Ag0.7Cu solder balls. Primary card assembly was performed using no clean (NC) lead free alloy solder paste, as well as tin lead (Sn/Pb) solder paste. The purpose of this evaluation was to study both pure lead free (Sn3.0Ag0.5Cu – SAC 305 and Sn3.8Ag0.7Cu – 405 systems) and mixed assembly (SAC BGA balls with Sn/Pb card assembly) solder joint reliability performance relative to that of the conventional Sn/Pb alloy. This evaluation included different surface finishes on assembly test vehicles such as OSP and ImmAg, and was done in both air and nitrogen. Additional studies were completed on another PCB test vehicle using a water soluble Sn3.8Ag0.7Cu (SAC 405) solder paste. Geometry factors such as ball, package pad and card pad diameters were evaluated. Package ball alloys SAC 305 and SAC 405 were compared. Mixed assembly performance under slightly different conditions was compared to the results from the above assembly matrix. Solder joints formed were examined “as assembled” and also after accelerated thermal cycling (ATC) using optical and Scanning Electron microscopy, EDX and X-ray methods. This paper contains references to “lead free” solder alloys. Lead free has become an industry standard term meaning that the solder alloy should contain less than the RoHS Directive limit (1,000 ppm) for lead. It does not mean that the solder alloy will necessarily contain no lead at all.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".